Archive for the 'Recusal' Category

Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice David Prosser “issued a 15-page opinion explaining why he believed he could participate” in the recent campaign finance decision involving Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-recall campaign, according to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. Prosser joined the majority of the court in the “John Doe” case, when it ruled that no campaign finance laws were violated by the anti-recall campaign and several conservative groups that were alleged to have coordinated their activities. The same groups spent significant sums to benefit Prosser’s supreme court campaign and the campaigns of other justices in the majority, and a special prosecutor asked Prosser and another justice to recuse themselves from the case. Neither did so. (See Gavel Grab.)

“Prosser wrote that outside spending to help him was ‘very valuable to my campaign’ but did not rise to a level that would require him to step down from the challenge to the investigation of those groups,” according to the Journal-Sentinel.

Meanwhile, critics of the Wisconsin high court’s ruling are urging prosecutors to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that the justices who benefited from outside spending, but did not recuse themselves, may have had an unconstitutional conflict of interest. (See Gavel Grab).

In a strongly-worded column for Newsweek, Billy Corriher and Maya Efrati of Legal Progress urge prosecutors in Wisconsin’s recent “John Doe” campaign finance case to appeal the ruling of the state Supreme Court in that case.

The ruling in the “John Doe” case effectively halted further investigation of alleged collusion between Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-recall campaign and conservative groups, when the court decided that there were no violations of campaign finance laws (see Gavel Grab). But Corriher and Efrati argue that because several justices on the court benefited from millions of dollars in campaign spending by those same conservative groups, “Prosecutors have a strong argument that the Wisconsin justices had an unconstitutional conflict of interest.” They argue that the justices who benefited from the spending should have recused themselves, and that since they did not, there are grounds for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The writers also suggest that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co. Inc. should serve as a meaningful precedent. “Caperton has not yet been applied by any lower court to require recusal,” they note. “But if the decision means anything, it must apply to the Wisconsin decision.”

A New Yorker commentary by Lincoln Caplan takes a critical look at the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s recent ruling that quashed a campaign finance investigation involving Gov. Scott Walker, and it suggests the ruling may have national implications.

You can learn more from Gavel Grab about how the issue of judicial recusal was handled in the 4-2 ruling. Caplan wrote this about recusal: “The highly political nature of the election, or reëlection, of the court’s conservative justices, between 2007 and 2013, and the highly political nature of their rejection of the traditional recusal rule have for half a decade made the court vulnerable to charges that it has become a political body. With their decision to halt a major criminal investigation of the sitting governor, who is running for President, and to do so by gutting the state law regulating campaign finance, the conservatives have confirmed the weight of those charges.”Read more

The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s ruling that there were no violations of campaign finance laws by Gov. Scott Walker’s anti-recall campaign and conservative groups continues to stir controversy on both sides. The ruling in the “John Doe” case effectively halted further investigation of the alleged collusion.

In a scorching commentary supporting the ruling, The National Review Online said the investigation of alleged violations was nothing short of a “witch hunt” perpetrated by state Democrats. A report in the Wisconsin State Journal noted that the Wisconsin court’s majority described the investigation as a “dragnet” involving “highly publicized raids” of private homes.

But a piece in the LaCrosse Tribune focused on the failure of several state Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves, although they had benefited from millions of dollars in campaign spending by the same conservative groups at the center of the case. Prosecutors might have the option to appeal the ruling in federal court, the Tribune suggested, citing legal experts who named the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling in the landmark Caperton case as a possible precedent.

In the same Tribune piece a conservative legal scholar disagreed, noting that “if elected judges had to recuse themselves from cases involving groups that donate to their campaigns, then so would judges who were targets of campaign spending,” according to the report. Rick Esenberg of the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty told the paper that if a broad view of the Caperton decision were adopted, “‘it’s basically impossible to have judicial elections’ because there will always be an array of political parties supporting or opposing judges.”

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on Thursday there were no violations of campaign finance laws by Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign and conservative groups in 2011 and 2012 recall elections, likely ending a state campaign finance investigation. Justice at Stake Campaign Deputy Executive Director Liz Seaton made the following statement:

“Wisconsin’s state Supreme Court justices should never have had to find themselves in the position of hearing a case involving groups that spent millions to help elect some of them. When this happens, it goes to the core of current problems plaguing elections of judges.

“With this newest controversy, the Wisconsin Supreme Court becomes a national example for those urging a serious look at reforms to minimize the influence of money in politics in judicial selection. Where states elect their judges, these reforms must include robust judicial recusal rules.”

There are more legal ripples involving a federal appeals court judge who, when he was the focus of an investigation by the Justice Department’s ethics unit several years ago, established a legal defense fund (see Gavel Grab).

The National Law Journal reports (in an article available by searching Google), “Judge Bybee Recusal at Center of Doctor’s Suit Against Hospital.” It says a doctor who is suing the hospital where he formerly practiced contends that Judge Jay Bybee of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals influenced a court panel ruling adverse to the doctor even though Bybee, after initially declining a request by the doctor to recuse from the panel in the case, later did step aside. Read more

Both the prosecution and defense involved in former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s criminal proceedings have given notice they do not object to U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin continuing to preside over the case.

Judge Durkin had openly discussed issues that might lead a party to seek his recusal when he presided over Hastert’s arraignment earlier this week (see Gavel Grab). They included his donating, as a lawyer in private practice, $1,500 to Hastert congressional campaigns and his having worked in private practice with Hastert’s son. The judge said he was confident he could handle the case impartially.

According to Politico, Judge Durkin will continue to preside over the proceedings against Hastert.

The federal district court judge conducting former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s arraignment, who as a private lawyer had donated $1,500 to Hastert campaigns, openly addressed issues about fair and impartial courts on Tuesday.

Judge Thomas Durkin, according to Politico, “announced at the hearing that he was provisionally recusing himself due to several personal and family ties to Hastert, Hastert’s relatives and the Republican Party, as well as lawyers on both the defense and prosecution teams.” He also said that if both sides concurred, his recusal could be waived. The judge said he was confident he could be impartial.

The Washington Post reported on the proceeding in a somewhat different manner, saying Judge Durkin “acknowledged that the potential appearance of a conflict of interest created grounds for disqualification. Durkin gave Hastert and prosecutors until Thursday to review his disclosures and determine whether to waive his offer to step aside.”

Opposing sides are slugging it out over a recent request by attorneys for ExxonMobil Corp., BP America Co., Chevron Corp., and several independent energy companies that Louisiana Supreme Court Justice Jeff Hughes step aside from participating in review of two environmental cases, due to campaign spending by trial lawyers (see Gavel Grab).

A group of trial lawyers who helped Justice Hughes win election in 2012 opposed the motion for him to recuse, the Louisiana Record reported. Lawyer John Carmouche, who founded the Citizens for Clean Water and Land PAC that spent thousands in support of Hughes, said campaign support for a candidate does not translate into bias in the courtroom.

“You take an oath as a Supreme Court justice of the State of Louisiana to be fair and impartial,” Carmouche said. “If we are saying they cannot then we are saying the whole system is flawed.” Louisiana Record, a legal publication, is owned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform.

A Chicago Daily Herald editorial urged U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin to step aside from handling a criminal proceeding against former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert. When Durkin was a private attorney, he donated $1,500 to Hastert’s congressional campaigns (see Gavel Grab).

“The connections between the two men don’t necessarily set the stage for bias in the handling of the court proceedings. And some legal experts are of the opinion the ties between Hastert and Durkin are not substantial enough to mandate the judge recuse himself,” the editorial said.

“Still, in a case this sensitive, it would be best for the judge to head off any appearance of his political and professional links to the defendant affecting the outcome.”Read more

Search this site

About the Justice at Stake Campaign

The Justice at Stake Campaign supports fair and impartial courts by educating the public about the importance of and growing threat to fair courts, as well as educating and organizing allies and grassroots supporters to support reforms in the selection of judges, safeguard courts from political attacks and promote diversity on the bench.

The Campaign's affiliate organization, Justice at Stake, is a nonpartisan organization working to keep our courts fair and impartial. Justice at Stake and its partners educate the public and work for reforms to keep politics and special interests out of the courtroom so judges can do their job protecting our Constitution, our rights and the rule of law.